Thursday, December 10, 2015

Turkey's invasion and occupation of Iraq continues

The Turkish invasion and occupation of Iraq continues. RT reports, "Ankara carried out airstrikes targeting Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK)
forces in northern Iraq, the Turkish army said on Wednesday. The action
comes in the wake of rising tensions between Ankara and Baghdad over
the deployment of Turkish troops in Iraq."

These bombings have been protested by various Iraqi officials including prime minister Haider al-Abadi. The new wrinkle developed over Turkey sending troops into Mosul. Sunday, Iraqi Prime
Minister Haider al-Abadi gave Turkey 48 hours to remove their troops
from Mosul. Tuesday saw Turkey's response: We'll stop sending troops into Iraq . . . but we're leaving those already in Mosul.

#Iraq: Some groups announce a demonstration will take place in front of #Turkish embassy on saturday.

4 retweets1 like

Yesterday, Russia -- which has its own tensions with Turkey -- took the matter to the United Nations Security Council. Edith M. Lederer (AP) reports
that Vitaly Churkin, Russia's Ambassador to the United Nations, states
he declared Turkey was conducting itself "recklessly and inexplicably"
and that they were acting without legal backing.

Though Hadier had insisted he would take the matter to the United Nations, he did not do so.

His failure to do so probably matters little at this point. Especially after the UN's non-reaction. TODAY'S ZAMAN explains:

Russia's attempt to have the UN Security Council issue a statement calling on Turkey to respect international law and the sovereignty of Iraq
after Turkey's recent troop deployment in Mosul failed on Tuesday,
while the Iraqi ambassador to the UN appeared to downplay the dispute
between Ankara and Baghdad.

In a chance to play catch up -- and also an effort to practice some face saving -- he's made a move. Tulay Karadeniz and Ercan Gurses (REUTERS) report
that he issued a statement (whine?) insisting, "NATO must use its
authority to urge Turkey to withdraw immediately from Iraqi territory."

AL JAZEERA reports:Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has said that Turkish troops
are in Iraq at the request of Haider al-Abadi, Iraqi prime
minister, since 2014.The arrival of a heavily armed Turkish contingent near the front line
close to Mosul has added yet another controversial deployment to a war
against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) group that has
drawn in most of the world's major powers.

"Turkish soldiers are in Basheeqa camp at the request of Haider
al-Abadi in 2014. Now I am asking why he was silent since 2014," Erdogan
said in an interview with Al Jazeera on Wednesday.

That's a bit like saying, "You invited me into your home."

And me replying, "Yes, I invited you for dinner and that was three days ago. It's really past time for you to leave."

One invitation means they're there forever? Or they guests or bed bugs?

Yesterday's snapshot covered some of Wednesday's Senate Armed Services Committee hearing. But one point we'll note this morning is the following comments by the Committee Chair.

Chair John McCain: In response, Mr. Secretary, in response to your last two points? One, on the funding, we just received that request last week but you know very well that's the result of the absolute failure of the expenditure of what was judged then to be $43 million and for or five people were trained We don't want to approve of something like that again. We want to -- We want to -- If you want that kind of money to train and equip, we want to know what the plan is. And we don't want to see a repetition of testimony by the head of Central Command who said, "Well we have four or five less and we've spent $43 million." We have an obligation to the taxpayers.

McCain was responding to Secretary of Defense Ash Carter's absurd assertion that unless the Senate immediately approved Barack's latest monetary demands for the Iraq War than the Congress was undermining the war against terrorism.

McCain was noting the waste of the $43 million previously for training -- the portion of that which went to Syria, as was revealed in a previous Congressional hearing -- resulted in the eventual count of four or five troops. The others, at various points, fled the force so all the millions were wasted.

What is Barack's plan?

There doesn't appear to be one.

If US House Rep Gary Ackerman were still in Congress, he would no doubt be making his "We're here because we're here because we're here because . . ." point. When the State Dept took over training of Iraqi forces in the fall of 2011, he began making that point about the supposed 'plan' in place. And how the State Dept could not provide concrete answers (or, under Hillary, a breakdown of their budget request -- or anything at all).

We covered the November 30th House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the MiddleEast and South Asia in the December 1st snapshot
and noted that Ranking Member Gary Ackerman had several questions. He
declared, "Number one, does the government of Iraq -- whose personnel we
intend to train -- support the [police training] program? Interviews
with senior Iaqi officials by the Special Inspector General show utter
didain for the program. When the Iraqis sugest that we take our money
and do things instead that are good for the United States. I think that
might be a clue." The State Dept's Brooke Darby faced that
Subcommittee. Ranking Member Gary Ackerman noted that the US had already
spent 8 years training the Iraq police force and wanted Darby to answer
as to whether it would take another 8 years before that training was
complete? Her reply was, "I'm not prepared to put a time limit on it."
She could and did talk up Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Interior
Adnan al-Asadi as a great friend to the US government. But Ackerman and
Subcommittee Chair Steve Chabot had already noted Adnan al-Asadi, but
not by name. That's the Iraqi official, for example, Ackerman was
referring to who made the suggestion "that we take our money and do
things instead that are good for the United States." He made that
remark to SIGIR Stuart Bowen.

Brooke Darby
noted that he didn't deny that comment or retract it; however, she had
spoken with him and he felt US trainers and training from the US was
needed. The big question was never asked in the hearing: If the US
government wants to know about this $500 million it is about to spend
covering the 2012 training of the Ministry of the Interior's police, why
are they talking to the Deputy Minister?

Ranking Member Gary Ackerman: When will they be willing to stand up without us?

Brooke Darby: I wish I could answer that question.

Ranking Member Gary Ackerman: Then why are we spending money if we don't have the answer?

[long pause]

Ranking
Member Gary Ackerman: You know, this is turning into what happens after
a bar mitzvah or a Jewish wedding. It's called "a Jewish goodbye."
Everybody keeps saying goodbye but nobody leaves.

All this time later, the White House, the State Dept, all of them can still supply no concrete plan but can continue to insist that millions and millions of tax dollars be spent for something,anything, in Iraq that will somehow help even though it has not thus far.

Press TV: So you have the US Defense Secretary
making the statements and overall saying that the US has not been able
to contain the ISIL. What do you make of his statements? Jatras:
Well to start with I do not know if I would dignify this with the term
strategy and they seem to be just as incoherent and confused as American
policy has been in Iraq and also in Syria up till now.We are
going to get more equipment to the Iraqi army. I do not necessarily
object that but let’s remember how so much of that previous equipment
has ended up in the hands of [the Islamic State]. We obviously are concerned about
being essentially cooperating with Iran in support for Baghdad but at
the same time we are not going to cooperate with the Syrian government
against [the Islamic State]. It seems to me that there is no real strategy here at all
and I think one thing that is not being said is what the hazard is of
possibly placing more American ground "advisers" into Iraq which are
essentially boots on the ground and I think virtually all Americans are
opposed to.

About Me

We do not open attachments. Stop e-mailing them. Threats and abusive e-mail are not covered by any privacy rule. This isn't to the reporters at a certain paper (keep 'em coming, they are funny). This is for the likes of failed comics who think they can threaten via e-mails and then whine, "E-mails are supposed to be private." E-mail threats will be turned over to the FBI and they will be noted here with the names and anything I feel like quoting.
This also applies to anyone writing to complain about a friend of mine. That's not why the public account exists.